Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP v. J-M Mfg. Co.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtKruger, J.
A large law firm agreed to represent a manufacturing company in a federal qui tam action brought on behalf of a number of public entities. During the same time period, the law firm represented one of these public entities in matters unrelated to the qui tam suit. Both clients had executed engagement agreements that purported to waive all such conflicts of interest, current or future, but the agreements did not specifically refer to any conflict and the law firm did not tell either client about its representation of the other. This arrangement fell apart when the public entity discovered the…
2Cases cited61 opinions
- Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Holloway v. ArkansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Burrow v. ArceTexas Supreme Court · 1999
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Pitzer College v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co.California Supreme Court · 2019
- Antelope Valley Groundwater Cases Antelope Valley-east Kern Water Agency v. L. A. Cnty. Waterworks Dist. No. 40, Cross, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- 640 Octavia LLC v. WalstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- Aguila v. Becton and DickinsonDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
- Bacall v. ShumwayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.